The use of the phrase "public-private partnership" is, as Bret says, hardly new. Almost two years ago, when Dr. Lynn issued his paper that kicked off the ICANN reform process, here's what ICANN's announcement said:

"What has become clear to me and others is that a purely private organization will not work," said Lynn. "The Internet has become too important to national economic and social progress. Governments, as the representatives of their populations, must participate more directly in ICANN's debates and policymaking functions. We must find the right form of global public-private partnership - one that combines the agility and strength of a private organization with the authority of governments to represent the public interest."

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the "be private" approach in ICANN was, and still is, a mistake.

However, trying to create a new animal that uses the euphemistic thinking that is implicit in the term "public private partnership" is also a mistake.

Internet governance is, in the full glory of the term, "governance". And like any system of governance it is necessary to be crystal clear regarding what its powers are and how those powers are exercised and, perhaps most importantly, how those powers are constrained. Fuzzy thinking in these matters creates opportunities for abuse.

The inclusion of the "private" ingredient is really a way of saying "we chose to abandon the thinking of 18th century thinkers from Locke to Madison and revert to regimes in which arbitrary exercises of authority are permissable."

"Public-private partnership" is a reversion to the guild system, but backed with the full force and authority of government.

"Public-private partnership" should be called what it actually is - "government by the select few over the affairs of the many."

And being "government" it should be obliged to implement the full range of limitations and procedures that we impose on more typical institutions of government.